A Storm’s Coming On Campaign Finance
A Storm’s Coming On Campaign Finance
Yesterday’s high-profile decision in the Ricci firefighters case obscures another, equally important development which could usher in a new era of corporate money in politics. Traditionally, the Supreme Court decides every single case it heard during a particular term before adjourning for the summer recess. This Term, however, the Court announced that it will leave one case, a campaign finance case called Citizens United v. FEC, undecided. Moreover, in a brief order explaining why this decision will be delayed, the Court ordered the parties to brief whether a landmark precedent limiting the influence of corporate money in politics should be overruled.
Nineteen years ago, in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Court upheld a ban on independent political expenditures by corporate donors. As the Court explained in Austin, “the unique state-conferred corporate structure that facilitates the amassing of large treasuries warrants the limit on independent expenditures.” Corporations are designed to amass massive amounts of money, and they can use their enormous wealth to drown out individual voices, all while spending only a fraction of their treasuries.
Should the Court toss out Austin, it could be the end of any meaningful restrictions on campaign finance. In most states, all that is necessary to form a new corporation is to file the right paperwork in the appropriate government office. Moreover, nothing prevents one corporation from owning another corporation. Without Austin, even a cap on overall contributions becomes meaningless, because corporate donors can simply create a series of shell-corporations for the purpose of evading such caps.
Admittedly, Austin dealt only with independent expenditures, not direct corporate donations to candidates and their campaigns, but the Roberts Court’s apparent willingness to take on Austin directly is its boldest assault on campaign finance reform yet. By 2012, President Obama may not only need to run against the Republican candidate; he may also be in a no-holds-barred political fight with Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the Chamber of Commerce and Wal-Mart.
2 Responses to “A Storm’s Coming On Campaign Finance”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
So what? If Obama is right, his message will get out (he is the President, after all), and we won’t have anything to worry about. If Obama is wrong, then why shouldn’t opposing voices be able to speak?
July 1st, 2009 at 12:32 pm@Alan:
You are joking, right? Our political system is already too heavily influenced by business interests.
If corporations can donate as much money as they want, you can say goodbye to any chance of stopping global warming, any chance of preventing an economic crisis like our current one, any chance of meaningful healthcare reform.
Essentially, you can say goodbye to Democracy as we know it.
If you have more money, you can run more adds, you can pay more staff, you can pay to stop your opponent from running adds. You can say whatever you like to as many people as you want and you are in no way obligated to tell the truth. You can lie and use your money to shut up anyone who tries to tell the truth.
If the SCOTUS does this, its time to start praying for a Roberts heart attack.
But perhaps I’m too cynical. There are a lot of rich interests around the world that have a more liberal agenda at heart, and I don’t think conservatives quite understand the can of worms they’d be opening. In fact, like most short-sited conservative policies(see: Iraq) it is likely to backfire.
If Google or Apple wants to donate as much as they want they can. But it gets worse, if China wants to create a shell corporation in the United States and funnel donation through it, they can, or if Virgin America, or Old Money in Europe.
We would all end up losing, but ultimately conservatives will lose much more than most.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:01 pm